National New Communities Program Sustainability Study: The Importance of Collaborative Partnerships

National New Communities Program Sustainability Study: The Importance of Collaborative Partnerships Lydia I. Marek, Ph.D. and Jay A. Mancini, Ph.D. Department of Human Development Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 January 2009 1

INTRODUCTION Each entity provides an essential component to make the program a success. The Extension 4-H YD expertise provides research based appropriate programming to develop leadership and project skills. The funding provided by United Way and the 4-H Leader s Board pays the college student staff and the School District has the infrastructure to implement the program successfully. Our specific interest in sustainability is in the understanding of its components and how it is achieved, maintained, and enhanced. We began our sustainability research in 1996 with data collected from 92 community-based programs funded by CSREES-USDA through the annual congressional appropriation for the National Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) Initiative. This funding was distributed to land grant university Cooperative Extension services over a period of five years with the purpose of developing community-based programs to serve at risk children, youth, and families. Qualitative and quantitative data on sustainability were collected at two years, four years, and six years post CYFAR/USDA funding. From this data we developed and refined a conceptual sustainability framework (Mancini & Marek, 2004) that was further informed by the existing literature on sustainability, a nationwide organizational change survey of 6,000 program professionals (Betts, Peterson, Marczak, & Richmond, 2002) and a quantitative survey of 250 program professionals (Marek, Mancini, Earthman, & Brock, 2002). The result of this research program is the following seven-factor conceptual framework (Mancini & Marek, 2004): 1. Leadership Competence: Leaders are committed to the program, communicate a clear mission, and are able to develop, early in the program life-cycle, a realistic program plan with multiple strategies for sustainability. 2. Effective Collaboration: Collaborators include key community stakeholders that share a common vision for the program and understand that their responsibilities include providing resources, program development and implementation, and program evaluation. 3. Understanding the Community: Program developers know community needs and assets through regular assessments and develop programs in which the community is involved in and supportive of. 4. Demonstrating and Disseminating Program Impact: Evaluation plans are developed early and used to demonstrate program effectiveness, inform program modification, and disseminate program successes to key stakeholders and potential funders. 5. Strategic Funding: Funding is sufficient for program operations and there are plans in place for obtaining additional long-term funding. 6. Staff Involvement and Integration: Staff is committed to the program, is involved at all levels of program operation, is flexible and creative in their approaches, and are well qualified and trained to work on the program. 2

7. Program Responsiveness: Programs are responsive to changing community needs and resources. It is this most current rendition of the sustainability framework that we implemented with community-based programs funded by CSREES-USDA through the CYFAR-USDA New Communities Program Initiative. Similar to the original CYFAR Youth at Risk and State Strengthening Initiative, funding was distributed through Land Grant University Cooperative Extension services for a period of five years with the purpose of developing community-based programs for at risk children and their families. This report continues the New Communities Project Sustainability study begun last year. In addition to examining the sustainability of the 14 New Communities Programs one (nine states) and two (five states) years after their initial five years of funding ended last year, this year we include ten more projects two years after their initial funding ended. Partnerships, including faith-based, 4-H, and other community collaborations, are also explored to better understand who community partners are, what their involvement in programs is, and how they contribute to the success of the sustained NCP projects. Partnerships and collaboration has been a key ingredient in USDA-CSREES funded projects for at risk youth and families and warrant special consideration. Therefore, we address the following questions: I. To what degree are NCP projects sustaining community-based programs for atrisk children, youth, and families? II. What are the factors favoring sustainability of community-based programs? III. What is the particular role of community-based and faith-based program partnerships in sustaining CYFAR community projects? IV. What is the role of 4-H in these sustained projects? V. What is Cooperative Extension s role in the sustainability of these programs? METHODS Procedures Fourteen states completed their five years of USDA-CSREES New Communities Funding in September 2000 or 2001 with an additional 10 states completing their funding in September 2002. A point of contact for each of the 24 states was identified via their program closeout reports and then confirmed with CSREES-USDA. All points of contact were e-mailed a survey and asked to complete it. Follow-up e-mails were sent to non-respondents. Ultimately, all states responded and provided at least some information except for the state of Michigan. Responses received were mostly from CES Project Directors (74%) or CES Project Staff (9%). The other 17% of respondents were either non-ces project staff or other (site or project coordinator or project evaluator not connected with Extension). When more than one respondent provided information for a state, quantitative responses were averaged. This provided a program response for 23 projects or a 96% response rate. Results reported are based on 23 projects except for the percentage of sustained projects which is reported for all projects. [For the purposes of this report, we make the assumption that Michigan is no longer active as no response was received although multiple attempts were made to gather this information.] 3

Instrument The sustainability survey was constructed based on information obtained from qualitative and quantitative data collected for the Youth at Risk Sustainability Study (Mancini & Marek, 1998; Marek, Mancini, & Brock, 1999; Marek, Mancini, Earthman, & Brock, 2002). It includes items pertaining to program status, goals, programs, number of sites and participants, Cooperative Extension involvement, partnerships, and facilitators and obstacles to sustainability. Current program functioning as well as changes since the program completed its funding one to two years prior (at the end of its original funding) is assessed. In addition, respondents were also asked to complete the Program Sustainability Index (PSI). The PSI is a 53 item measure of the seven Sustainability Factors (Mancini & Marek, 2004). Data Analysis Data were entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and frequencies are reported for all items. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed and are reported in the appropriate sections throughout this report to provide more descriptive responses to accompany the quantitative questions. NCP Program Description The majority of these NCP programs (78%) are located in relatively small communities with populations up to 50,000 whereas larger urban areas account for 22% of these programs (see Table 1). Table 1: Community size where New Communities Programs were located Population Of Community Percent Less than 2500 13% Between 2501 and 50,000 65% Between 50,001 and 250,000 22% Respondents were asked which of the following types of youth oriented programming was offered through their projects and are reported in Table 2. Table 2: Aspects of current NCP programming Encouraging youth to form friendships with peers and to be part of a supportive community where collaborative learning is encouraged. Youth also bond with one or more caring adults who encourage and help them grow in positive ways. Providing many opportunities for project work, evaluation, and feedback. Youth develop skills using hands-on learning approaches and learn how to transfer these skills to other life situations. Encouraging members to use their skills to improve others lives by mentoring younger members, identifying community needs and participation in community service projects. Providing youth with many decision-making and leadership experiences including serving as a club officer, mentor, teacher, teen ambassador, and teen leader, among others. 87% 74% 65% 55% 4

RESULTS I. To what degree are NCP projects sustaining community based programs for at-risk children, youth, and families? In determining the current status of these programs, three aspects of sustainability were measured: 1) perceived sustainability, 2) program activity, and 3) the ability of the program to meet the needs of at risk youth and their families. These variables reflect definitions of sustainability involving competency, capacity, and continuity over time. Frequencies for these items are reported below. 1. Program Activity: Almost all (n=22/24 or 92%) projects continue to be active one, or two, years post CYFAR/USDA funding (with the assumption that the status of Michigan s project is inactive). Of the 22 active projects: 26% reported expanded activities. 30% reported that activity levels were maintained. 44% reported reduced activities. One project that reported reduced activities went on to state: With no increase in local funding for what is considered non-traditional funding and with organizational downsizing, all totaled have resulted in these projects being for the most part, discontinued in three of the four sites. Others reflected on the current project: At the beginning of the CYFAR project, we had no idea this is what it would look like today, but I think it looks even better than we thought. We have greatly expanded our influence and raised capacity at school sites all over town. 2. Perceived Sustainability: More than half (56%) of the projects projects are Mostly (43%) to Completely (13%) sustained and 39% are partially sustained. Only one of the 23 projects reporting was not at all sustained. 3. Ability of the Project to Meet the Needs of At Risk Youth and their Families: Almost three-quarters (74%) of active projects reported that their project was Mostly (48%) to Fully (26%) meeting the needs of at risk children, youth, and/or families while 26% reported Somewhat meeting their needs. Overall, these projects continue to operate and to retain their original goal of serving at risk children, youth, and families. However, when respondents were asked whether they experienced obstacles in sustaining their projects, only 17% (or 4 projects) reported no obstacles. Of the 83% that reported obstacles, 59% reported them as somewhat a problem and 41% reported them as very much of a problem for project continuity. However, only 10% reported that their projects were not actively working to resolve these obstacles. Moreover, 87% of 5

respondents are Somewhat (48%) or Very Much (39%) confident that their project will be active five years from now. When asked when their project began actively planning for project survival, more than half (57%) reported planning during the initial project proposal or during the first year. An additional 35% began planning during the second or third year of funding and only two projects began planning during their fourth year of funding. Successful projects reported: (We) planned from the time of proposal writing to the end of the project funding. The plan for a well thought out community development project with fiscal and program sustainability institutionalized from the proposal stage. II. What are the factors favoring sustainability of community based projects? The purpose behind the development of the Sustainability Framework was to identify what contributes to and detracts from project sustainability. The first level of sustainability assessment involved identifying the presence of the framework factors within current project functioning. These factors include: Leadership Competence, Understanding the Community, Effective Collaborations, Demonstrating and Disseminating Program Impact, Strategic Funding, Staff Involvement and Integration, and Program Responsiveness. 1. LEADERSHIP COMPETENCE The most commonly reported sources of organization leadership for these projects were Cooperative Extension (74%), schools (52%), community agencies (46%), community coalitions (39%), and religious or faith-based organizations (9%). When asked about their current leadership s effectiveness, the vast majority reported either somewhat or very much, that their leader established the project s mission and vision (95%), planned within the first two years for project sustainability (91%) and continued planning (86%), developed and followed a realistic project plan (95%), and have identified alternative strategies for project survival (95%). As project informants stated with regard to their sustainability: Regretfully, this project was very reliant on the paid staff person. While the Roundtable did meet during the duration of the project, no one person stepped up and assumed a leadership role. Thus when the staff person was not present, there was limited activity with the project. 2. EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION Projects reported patterns of effective collaboration. When asked a series of questions about their collaboration, the following items were responded to as very much occurring in their projects: local decision makers are project collaborators (46%); community service agencies are project collaborators (76%); collaborators are involved in program design (59%), collaborators are involved in program implementation (64%); collaborators are involved in program evaluation (62%); collaborators share responsibility for providing program resources (64%); collaborators share credit for project successes (76%); collaborators have clearly defined roles and responsibilities (64%); and there is a shared vision among collaborators (64%). One 6

project reported that local decision makers are not at all project collaborators; three projects reported that collaborators are not at all involved in program design, two reported that collaborators are not at all involved in program implementation, four reported collaborators not at all involved in evaluation; one reported that collaborators are not at all involved in sharing responsibility for providing program resources, and one reported that there was no shared vision among collaborators. Since the expiration of the NCP funding, the number of collaborators has decreased (in 35% of cases), stayed the same (44%), or increased (22%) while the intensity of the collaborators involvement has mostly stayed the same (57%). As project informants stated in regard to their partnerships and what would contribute to their future sustainability: The partnerships between CES and the two major partners remain very strong despite the lack of funding. We are working closely with both partners to secure funding for the CYFAR site and other sites to continue to operate [above 2 agencies are full partners/collaborators] without whom there would be no project. The commitment of the agencies that provided the "program site" to continue programming of this nature in their local community. The projects we were involved in were for the most part autonomous entities with whom we collaborated. The factor that has and will contribute to the continuation of the project is the capacity building that occurred during the project. The only project that may not continue is the one that was solely dependent on Cooperative Extension for its existence. They operate the programs that NCP initiated/expanded. CES serves as a resource for materials, curriculum, equipment, staff training, hosting events where program youth can participate. 3. UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY Community needs are regularly assessed by the vast majority (91%) of the projects either somewhat or very much and 95% of projects report assessing community resources/assets regularly. All projects either somewhat or very much reported that their project addresses key community needs, matches project goals with community needs, and accounts for diversity in their community. Two projects reported that they are not effectively utilizing community resources and three projects do not have community members involved at all in program design or implementation. Six projects (27%) do not have strong local governmental support. As project informants stated with regard to their sustainability: Sustainability will continue as long as the community needs after school enrichment. [our program] community collaboration is designed to meet this need. Sustainability will continue as long as the community needs out of school time childcare and enrichment for our 5-13 year olds. a non-profit community collaboration, is designed to continue to meet this need. 7

We have sustained because of the commitment of the agencies that provided the program site to continue programming of this nature in their local community. We have sustained because of dedicated community members who have taken what they have learned and have leveraged that information to continue their community efforts. 4. DEMONSTRATING AND DISSEMINATING PROGRAM IMPACT All active projects, save two, reported developing evaluation plans prior to implementing programs and 64% very much demonstrate project effectiveness through evaluations. Almost one-third of the active projects somewhat and 55% very much conduct evaluations on a regular basis. All but three projects use evaluation results to modify programming. As project informants stated with regard to their sustainability: [Need for].emphasis on evaluation of youth outcomes. Relationships and telling our story. We have to keep talking about the needs, the process and the outcomes. People get excited about these kinds of issues, but we have to make them known. NCP evaluation gave program legitimate successful standing in academic circles as well. 5. STRATEGIC FUNDING Long-term funding support was found to be more stable than for past CYFAR projects. More than one-third (36%) report that their current funding is very much sufficient for project operations with an additional 27% reporting this somewhat. However, when asked about funding being available on a longer term basis (more than two years), less than one-third (32%) report having this in place into the future. More than half of the active projects (57%) reported at least somewhat having sufficient funds for hiring and retaining quality staff. Project informants reported that they receive the majority of project monetary support from Grants (44%), Cooperative Extension (32%), Schools (14%), Contracts (14%), User fees (14%), and United Way (5%) although they receive some level of monetary support from most of their collaborators [Religious or faith-based organizations 10%; local businesses 16%; Private donations 19%; Fundraising 27%]. As project informants stated with regard to explaining their sustainability: A primary funding source has been state government with a contract for a program focused on prevention of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. This is an annual contract that has been experiencing reduced numbers (therefore fewer contractual dollars) annually. We continue to look for grants to continue the support for program. that is on year by year basis and allows full programming. 6. STAFF INVOLVEMENT AND INTEGRATION 8

Projects appeared to have effective staffing patterns, with all but one project reporting that project staff were either somewhat or very much committed to the project mission, vision, and goals, are qualified to work on the project, and are involved in program design and program decision making. Since CYFAR NCP funding ended, 57% of active projects reported having less staff than during the funding period and only 9% reported having more staff. Onequarter (26%) of active projects have enough staff all of the time with an additional 26% reporting there was enough staff sometimes. Almost half of the active projects (48%) reported that there was rarely or never enough staff to support the program. Since NCP funding ended, the number of volunteers has remained mostly the same (61%). About half of the active projects report not having enough volunteers to support their programs never or rarely (48%) and 52% have enough sometimes or all the time. As project informants stated with regard to their sustainability: Volunteers are great and contribute a tremendous amount to the programs but Extension staff will need to be involved to continue the 4-H enrichment activities. High quality, well-educated, dedicated staff. Competent staff who are housed in the community are critical to sustainability. Staff commitment and continuity. 7. PROGRAM RESPONSIVENESS All active projects have gone through some changes since CYFAR-NCP funding ended. Typical changes include: (1) changing program goals (78%), (2) program expansion (65%), reduction (70%) or elimination (50%), and (3) increasing (26%) or decreasing (35%) the number of sites and increasing participants (37%) or decreasing the number of participants (46%). These adaptations were primarily made in response to various conditions, including: to meet changing community needs, because of a change in the number of participants, to expand their participant base, to expand programming, to meet participant needs, because new sites or communities were added, were required by new funding source, because of a reduction in funding; or because their original goals were met. As project informants stated with regard to their sustainability factors: We had to develop an internship program to meet [our staffing] need. Our project served a particular purpose based on the needs of the community at the time. Today, the community looks different, so we were able to work with other partners to expand who was served and where they were served. At the beginning of the CYFAR project, we had no idea this is what it would look like today, but I think it looks even better than we thought. We have greatly expanded our influence and raised capacity at school sites all over town. Both [the program] and CES have both grown and flexed in order to make this program work. 9

The partnerships established through NCP created a strong foundation for programs to be self-sustaining. The entities within the communities used the lessons learned/evaluation information from the NCP to obtain other funding to sustain the program. Some have changed form due to staffing, funding, or other factors, but have succeeded in maintaining a place in the community and a connection with the University. III. What is the role of community-based and faith-based program partnerships in sustaining CYFAR community projects? They operate the programs that NCP initiated/expanded. CES serves as a resource for materials, curriculum, equipment, staff training, hosting events where program youth can participate. They promote the program and use success stories to raise community funds to support this program and numerous others in the community. Respondents reported that they collaborate with a variety of organizations. See Table 3 for agencies/organizations that are currently involved with the active NCP programs on an ongoing basis. At least three-quarters of all projects collaborate with 4-H, CES, and schools. Table 3: Current Collaborators/Partners Partner % 4-H Programs 91% CES (local or state) 87% Schools 74% Land Grant Universities 61% Other community service organizations 59% Government Agencies 55% Local Colleges 36% Local Businesses 33% Religious-Faith Based Institutions 23% Other 23% Civic Organizations 18% YMCA/YWCA 14% Boys and Girls Club 10% The type of activities that are being provided by these collaborators/partners are more fully described in Table 4 and are divided into three categories of partners: Cooperative Extension, Community-based organizations, and Religious-Faith-based organizations. The first number in each column is the percentage of projects who view those partners as Very Much involved in that particular activity while the second number is the percentage of projects who view those partners as Somewhat involved in that activity. The total number is the percentage of active responding projects that view that partner as at least somewhat involved. 10

In more than three-quarters of reporting projects, Cooperative Extension is at least somewhat involved in training, grant proposal writing, evaluation, curriculum development, providing program materials, coalition participation, in-kind support, program implementation, and program leadership. In more than three-quarters of reporting projects, community-based organizations are at least somewhat involved in training, providing space, providing program materials, coalition participation, providing personnel, implementing programs, providing leadership, providing and being involved in volunteer activities, and recruiting program participants. Religious/Faith based organizations are not as involved as the other two partner categories but when they are involved, they are at least somewhat involved in almost onequarter of reporting projects by providing space, participating in coalitions, being members of advisory boards, providing in-kind support, volunteering, and recruiting participants. Table 4: Involvement of Partners in NCP Projects activities Very Much / Somewhat PROJECT ACTIVITIES COOPERATIVE EXTENSION COMMUNITY- BASED ORGANIZATIONS RELIGIOUS-FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS Training and/or workshops for project 48%/43% =91% 15%/65%=80% 0/11%=11% personnel Grant proposal writing 43%/48%=91% 30%/25%=65% 0% Evaluation of Programs 53%/24%=87% 20%/40%=60% 0/5%=5% Provision of Space 20%/15%=35% 60%/25%=85% 0/21%=21% Curriculum development 43%/34%=77% 10%/60%=70% 0/5%=5% Provision of program materialsequipment 43%/43%=86% 40%/45%=85% 0/11%=11% Involved in a formal coalition for 58%/33%=91% 50%/35%=85% 16%/6%=22% project Advisory Board member 29%/34%=63% 40%/15%=55% 5%/16%=21% Fiscal management 38%/29%=67% 20%/40%=60% 0% Direct funding support (cash) 10%/19%=29% 20%/35%=55% 5%/11%=16% In-kind support (non-monetary) 43%/38%=81% 55%/25%=70% 11%/21%=32% Supervision of staff and volunteers 48%/19%=67% 30%/45%=70% 0/5%=5% Provision of personnel 38%/34%=72% 30%/60%=90% 0%/16%=16% Program implementation 48%/48%=96% 50%/35%=85% 0/16%=16% Program leadership 53%/24%=77% 30%/50%=80% 0/16%=16% Volunteer activities 29%/43%=72% 15%/60%=75% 0/37%=37% Recruitment of program participants 43%/29%=72% 55%/30%=85% 0/26%=26% Quotes from participants support that having many partners involved in these projects has strengthened their sustainability efforts: Having diverse partners. Each may not have the means to contribute at a sustainable level but collectively the partners may be able to maintain the program. While there are bumpy times in general, each agency brings its best resources to the table to do what each agency could not do individually. We work together on a shared vision, even if our expertise and methodologies might be different. 11

IV. What is Cooperative Extension s role in the sustainability of these programs? Extension is seen as an expert in this field in our community because of what we know, do, and contribute. Maintaining that reputation is hard but ensures that we get the work done. The Extension 4-H YD expertise provides research based appropriate programming to develop leadership and project skills. Our experience and involvement in the CYFAR program over the years has been successful due in large measure to the development and maintenance of a strong network of Cooperative Extension educators and administrative leaders who have embraced the principles of CYFAR as being consistent with the principles of CCE 4-H Youth Development and the University s mission for outreach and extension to diverse, nontraditional, and hard-to-reach audiences. To explain the high level of continuing sustainability and high confidence in future sustainability for all projects that were funded through CYFAR (YAR, State Strengthening, and New Communities Projects), we continue to suggest an eighth Sustainability Factor unique to these programs the contributions and commitment of Cooperative Extension. Commitment to Sustainability and to Serving At-Risk Populations In addition to continuing to provide resources to these projects, Cooperative Extension is committed to serving at risk audiences and developing sustainable community-based programs. Almost all (86%) respondents in the sample strongly agreed (51%) or agreed (36%) that working on this project was a part of their ongoing work plan. Additionally, 91% of respondents strongly agreed (53%) or agreed (39%) that serving at risk audiences is an expectation of their organization or agency. Integration within the Cooperative Extension System Cooperative Extension was instrumental in sustaining many of these projects through integration into the Cooperative Extension system. Findings on integration revealed that: 78% of projects reported that their project had been Somewhat (35%) or To a great extent (43%) integrated within their state s Cooperative Extension System. 91% of projects reported that youth in their project had been Somewhat (61%) or To a great extent (30%) integrated into ongoing 4-H programs. 78% of projects reported that NCP projects are Somewhat (26%) or To a great extent (52%) supported by County Cooperative Extension Agents. Cooperative Extension provides sole leadership to 30% of active projects, shares leadership with collaborators for 26% of active projects, serves in an advisory/resource role to 30% of active projects and has no present involvement in only three (13%) of projects. 4-H Clubs In addition, 74% of active projects reported that a 4-H club is part of their program and for those who do not have a 4-H club, 83% have participants participate in a 4-H club with 24% reporting all their participants are involved in 4-H. In response to questions regarding the extent 12

that youth in their projects have been integrated into on-going 4-H programs, 61% reported somewhat and 30% to a great extent. NCP program introduced youth to 4-H programs. They were invited to join 4-H and continue participating in their structured youth activities. Program Intensity When asked if their programs offer high context and/or low context youth development, 85% of project informants agreed or strongly agreed that they offer high context youth development while only 41% agreed or strongly agreed that they offered low context youth development. CONCLUSIONS Consistent with our earlier research with Youth-at-Risk and State Strengthening projects, 92% of NCP CYFAR-USDA funded projects continue two years post funding. Only two out of 24 states did not sustain their NCP efforts. The majority of active projects continued to maintain or expand their projects; report that their project was mostly or completely sustained, and almost three-quarters reported that their project was mostly to fully meeting the needs of at risk children, youth or families. In addition, the vast majority (87%) of respondents are confident that their projects will still be active five years into the future. Findings on Cooperative Extension involvement revealed a strong ongoing commitment to serving at risk youth and families post NCP funding. This commitment is further supported by actions such as the vast provision of resources to support, conduct, and direct these projects as well as the partial to complete integration of the majority of these projects within the Cooperative Extension system and within the community. It is suggested that the presence of Cooperative Extension and the community partnerships that were developed prior to and during the NCP funding is largely responsible for providing these unusually high levels of sustainability and confidence. 13

REFERENCES Betts, S. C., Peterson, D. J., Marczak, M. S. & Richmond, L. S. (2002). System-wide evaluation: Taking the pulse of a national organization serving children, youth, and families at risk. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research and Practice, 4, 887-901. Mancini, J.A. & Marek, L. I. (2004). Sustaining community-based programs for families: Conceptualization and measurement. Family Relations, 53(4), 339-347. Mancini, J.A. & Marek, L.I. (1998). Patterns of program survival and organizational support: The national youth at risk program sustainability study. (Publication 350-800). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-800/350-800.html. Marek, L.I., Mancini, J.A., Earthman, G.E., & Brock, D. J. (2002). Ongoing community- based program implementation, successes, and obstacles: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study. (Publication 350-804.) Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-804/350-804.html. Marek, L. I., Mancini, J. A., & Brock, D.J. (1999). Continuity, success, and survival of community-based programs: The national youth at risk program sustainability study. (Publication 350-801.) Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-801/350-801.html. 14

About the Authors Lydia I. Marek, Ph.D., is a Research Scientist in Human Development at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). She received her doctoral degree from Virginia Tech in Marriage and Family Therapy. Her research has been published in Journal of Community Practice, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Journal of Extension, Family Therapy, and in Looking Back, Looking Forward: Lifecourse Unfolding of Parenthood. Dr. Marek is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and a Certified Family Life Educator (National Council on Family Relations). In addition to program sustainability, her current research focuses on prevention program evaluation, community needs and resources assessment, and community collaboration assessment. (lmarek@vt.edu) Jay A. Mancini, Ph.D., is Professor of Human Development at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), and the Senior Research Fellow with Virginia Tech s Institute for Society, Culture and Environment. He received his doctoral degree from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His research has been published in many social and behavioral science periodicals including Journal of Marriage and the Family, Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Journal of Community Practice, Educational and Psychological Measurement, and Human Relations. In addition to program sustainability, his current research focuses on community capacity and civic engagement. Dr. Mancini is a Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations and the World Demographic Association. (mancini@vt.edu) 15